Is China the enemy? | Dueling letters to Trump say no, yes | SupChina
Free

We're a new type of news publication

China news you won't read elsewhere.

Weekly Newsletter

Get a roundup of the most important and interesting stories coming out of China.

Podcasts

Sinica, TechBuzz China, and our 6 other shows are the undisputed champs of China podcasts. Listen now.

Feature Articles

Interactive, web-based deep dives into the real China.

Premium

Join the thousands of executives, diplomats, and journalists that rely on SupChina for daily analysis of the full China story.

Daily Newsletter

All the news, every day. Premium analysis directly from our Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Goldkorn.

24/7 Slack Community

Have China-related questions and want answers? Our Slack community is a place to learn, network, and opine.

Free Live Events & More

Monthly live conference calls with leading experts, free entry to SupChina live events in cities around the world, and more.

"A jewel in the crown of China reporting. I go to it, look for it daily. Why? It adds so much insight into the real China. Essential news, culture, color. I find SupChina superior."
— Max Baucus, former U.S. Ambassador to China

Free

We're a new type of news publication

China news you won't read elsewhere.

Weekly Newsletter

Get a roundup of the most important and interesting stories coming out of China.

Podcasts

Sinica, TechBuzz China, and our 6 other shows are the undisputed champs of China podcasts. Listen now.

Feature Articles

Interactive, web-based deep dives into the real China.

OR… for more in-depth analysis and an online community of China-focused professionals:

Learn About Premium Access Now!
Learn More
Minimize
Learn More
Minimize

Is China the enemy?

Dueling letters to Trump say no, yes.

Last week, China scholars and former diplomats M. Taylor Fravel, J. Stapleton Roy, Michael D. Swaine, Susan A. Thornton, and Ezra Vogel published an open letter to Donald Trump and members of Congress titled “China is not an enemy.” The letter was also signed by dozens of other prominent businesspeople, scholars, and think tank/government types, some of whom are by no means panda huggers. This is how it begins:

We are deeply concerned about the growing deterioration in U.S. relations with China, which we believe does not serve American or global interests. Although we are very troubled by Beijing’s recent behavior, which requires a strong response, we also believe that many U.S. actions are contributing directly to the downward spiral in relations.

Of course there was backlash. These days, you can’t suggest any kind of softening to China in D.C. or on Twitter without being accused of being on the Chinese Communist Party payroll.

Some of the criticism is more thoughtful: This Twitter thread by Tianjin resident American Matthew Stinson is fair.

Although many of the signatories of the letter may disagree with some of his arguments, his thinking is highly representative of a significant proportion of the younger people in the China-watching community. Here’s an argument on a similar theme, written before the open letter was published, from millennial American essayist Tanner Greer. Excerpt:

Engagement is dead. Yet like dead growth lumped to living branch, the men and women who crafted the disaster linger with us. In twitter whispers and podcast chatterings their murmurs grow. Engagement did not fail, we hear. It never was about remaking China in the first place. We never thought the Chinese would come to share our systems, values, or priorities. Engagement was about something else entirely.

They [the CCP] understood what we were doing perfectly well. They knew from the beginning that we hoped closer economic and social relations with the Chinese people would lead to their gradual emancipation from the claws of a tyrannous party-state. They knew! That is what Silent ContestIn Memory of the Collapse of Communist Party and the Soviet UnionDocument #9Xi’s obsession with ideological competitionWang Huning’s entire career, and two decades of Party-sponsored research and national security law was all about! To the Chinese state, the “engagement” and “responsible stakeholder” strategies were an existential threat to their regime, and they were not shy about telling us this. Our problem: we did not listen.

More recently, John Pomfret has weighed in, with an editorial in the Washington Post titled “Why the United States doesn’t need to return to a gentler China policy,” in which he blames “a profoundly paternalistic strain in the U.S. view of China” for leading American policymakers astray:

To blame the president for the current crisis with Beijing is redolent of an old view of China that has been around since the days of Christian missionaries. Treat China as an enemy, the tired chestnut goes, and China will become one. Treat China as a friend, and China will become a friend. It’s as if China has no role to play in this drama whatsoever. Can’t we bury that notion once and for all?

The CCP is far more responsible for what happens in China — and for the current crisis with the United States — than any American…

The Neanderthals of Washington, D.C., are also fighting back. There’s another open letter, titled “Stay the Course: Confront China’s Totalitarian Expansionism,” that is right now gathering signatures that advises Trump to “stay the course.” You can understand the type of thinking behind this letter from this excerpt:

An inspiration for this letter was the palpable surge of pride in America evident in your celebration of the 4th of July at the memorial to a president, Abraham Lincoln, who saved our country from a previous, existential peril.

Jeremy Goldkorn

Jeremy Goldkorn worked in China for 20 years as an editor and entrepreneur. He is editor-in-chief of SupChina, and co-founder of the Sinica Podcast.

2 Comments

  1. Zha Daojiong Reply

    Calling today’s China an “existential threat” to the United States is, with all that respect due to those old and young who so argue, a destructive creation of vocabulary. Societal level ties between the two countries are just too thin to warrant support for such a dire conclusion. Even in trade, as of 2018 over 60% of the value in exports from China to the U.S. came from foreign investors in China.

    On ideational matters, it does China no good to promote a sense of pride by designating the US as an opposite. The same should be true for the U.S.

  2. Ben Lowsen Reply

    Sorry, JG, but this is a poor show. CCP-PRC is moving into genocidal mode with its system of concentration camps. There is every indication that this is not “isolated” (if one can describe the incarceration and maltreatment of millions that way), but looks to become a model for the country.

    Admittedly, the latter letter’s language on Lincoln was of the flag-waiving variety, but not extreme. One needs no particular love for the president to say something good about Lincoln. I might have put it differently, but I signed onto that letter anyway because the issue here isn’t Trump, it’s China. To dismiss us as “Neanderthals” is beyond the pale.

    Moreover, you’ve reported inaccurately. That language was in the draft letter only, not the final. SupChina does some good work, but your prejudice has overruled your abilities in this case.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.